Review your BC strata manager against the contract and documented service. This Strata Match scorecard uses ten dimensions, scored 1–5: 40–50 suggests staying, 30–39 comparing alternatives, and below 30 planning a switch. The criteria draw on BCFSA’s selection questions (checked November 6, 2026); the scoring bands are Strata Match’s.
Key takeaway: ten dimensions, fifty points, one decision: stay, evaluate, or switch. 40–50 means stay and improve. 30–39 means open an RFP. Below 30 means run the switch playbook.
Ten dimensions, fifty points, one decision: stay, evaluate, or switch.
Why a rubric beats a gut feeling
A rubric ties service concerns to records and agreed expectations. Eli Report’s April 2025 analysis reports a $35 monthly BC management fee per unit: $16,800 annually for 40 units. Use the service agreement and records to assess what that fee buys.
The ten dimensions use BCFSA’s management-company selection guidance as a starting point. The scores and thresholds are Strata Match’s editorial rubric.
How stable is the manager assignment?
Score stability from the assigned manager’s tenure and recorded changes. A new manager every 12 to 18 months means memory is lost. Onboarding restarts. Old maintenance items come back to the table, and the council’s volunteer hours go toward re-explaining what the last manager already knew.
What good looks like (score 5): the same manager has served your building for 3+ years, knows the contractor list by memory, and flagged two things at the last AGM that weren’t in the agenda.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): you’ve had 3 different managers in the past 24 months, and the current one introduced themselves at the last meeting.
Scoring rubric for dimension 1:
How stable is the manager assignment?
| Score | What it describes |
|---|---|
| 5 | Same manager for 3+ years, full institutional memory |
| 4 | Same manager for 18–36 months |
| 3 | Same manager for 12–18 months |
| 2 | Two manager changes in the past 24 months |
| 1 | Three or more manager changes in the past 24 months |
Source: Guide sources, checked November 6, 2026. See the Sources section in this guide.
Dimension 2: Communication responsiveness
How fast should a BC strata manager respond to an email?
No law sets a reply time. Agree on a non-emergency reply time in the contract; this rubric uses 48 hours. Uneven replies can be worse than slow ones: same-day on Monday, silence for ten days, then a reply only after the council chases. Score this on both the stated SLA and the real-world behaviour. A contract that promises 24 hours but delivers 96 scores a 2, not a 5. Pull the last 10 non-emergency emails to the manager and count how many got a real reply inside 48 hours. If fewer than 7 of 10 did, the score is 3 or below.
What good looks like (score 5): substantive response within 48 hours on 9 of the last 10 emails, clear vacation coverage handoff, and a stated escalation path to the managing broker.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): emails go unanswered for a week or more, and the council hears back only after chasing.
Dimension 3: Financial transparency
What does a BC strata financial statement contain?
A monthly statement should include an operating ledger with notes, a CRF balance, arrears at the unit level, and any third-party pay from a contractor. A PDF dump of bank statements with no notes is not a financial report. CRF is the Contingency Reserve Fund, the savings account under Section 92 of the Strata Property Act for expenses that usually occur less often than once a year, such as the big repairs in the depreciation report. Ask for the last six monthly packages and read them side by side. If the CRF balance at end of month three doesn’t match the opening at month four, you have a reconciliation problem. Invoices with no matching work order are a trust problem.
What good looks like (score 5): monthly package includes narrative on variances, full vendor detail with invoice numbers, current CRF balance, and proactive flags on upcoming capital items. Third-party compensation, where it exists, is disclosed in writing.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): no narrative, no variance explanation, and the council can’t tell from the report whether the CRF is on track.
Dimension 4: Meeting preparation and attendance
Score meeting work against the attendance and preparation promised in the agreement. Standard Bylaw 19 requires council to give owners the council meeting minutes within 2 weeks of the meeting, unless your bylaws say otherwise, and the manager usually drafts them. A manager who shows up without reading the prior minutes is pushing volunteer hours back onto the council. Score this dimension on three specific behaviours. First, did the agenda arrive 7+ days before the meeting? Second, were the prior meeting’s minutes approved at the next one, or pushed? Third, did action items from two meetings ago show up in the current status report, or quietly vanish?
What good looks like (score 5): agenda distributed 7 days prior, action items tracked from meeting to meeting, minutes drafted within 14 days of the meeting, and a written 90-day plan delivered quarterly.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): agenda arrives the morning of, action items from three meetings ago are still “in progress,” and the manager doesn’t remember what was decided last time.
Dimension 5: Contractor and vendor management
Score contractor coordination from work orders, completion records and remuneration disclosures. Section 56 of the Real Estate Services Rules requires managers to disclose any pay from vendors they recommend or refer, and section 58 requires them to disclose any benefit from the strata’s spending before accepting it. Ask the direct question: does any vendor working with our building pay us a referral fee? An undisclosed referral fee can end a council’s trust in a firm, and a missed disclosure is grounds for a complaint to BCFSA.
What good looks like (score 5): written vendor policy, zero undisclosed third-party compensation, action items from meetings tracked to completion, and proactive flagging when a vendor is slipping.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): the same three maintenance items have been “scheduled” for six months, and the manager can’t answer whether vendor referral fees are received.
Dimension 6: Bylaw enforcement consistency
Score whether the manager supports council’s decisions with a consistent section 135 process. Even-handed enforcement means the same steps for every breach: written notice, hearing option under Section 135, fine at the set amount, escalation path. Uneven enforcement is where CRT complaints begin. Council, not the manager, decides each case (section 26), so score the manager on how well it runs the process council directs. Score this using minutes as proof. Count the bylaw breaches raised in the last six council meetings. How many got a Section 135 notice? How many were raised but never actioned? How many were enforced against one unit while the same breach in another was let go? The pattern matters more than the volume.
What good looks like (score 5): every infraction gets a Section 135 notice within 14 days, fines apply consistently at schedule rates, the process is documented in the minutes, and hearings are offered without prompting.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): enforcement is selective, hearings are skipped, and two identical infractions got two different outcomes.
Dimension 7: Insurance management
Score renewal preparation, coverage comparisons and commission disclosure. Sections 149 and 150 of the Strata Property Act require the strata to carry property insurance (on common property, common assets and the buildings) and liability insurance. The manager’s job is to run the renewal, show options, and disclose any broker pay under RESA. Score on three behaviours: did the manager start 90+ days before expiry, were multiple quotes shown, and was any broker commission disclosed in writing? If council’s answer is “insurance just renewed on its own,” the score is likely a 2 or below.
What good looks like (score 5): renewal process starts 90 days pre-expiry, three quotes presented, broker compensation disclosed in writing, and the council receives a plain-English summary of coverage changes year over year.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): renewal lands on the council’s desk 10 days before expiry with one quote, no options, and no disclosure.
Dimension 8: CRF and depreciation report alignment
The CRF and the depreciation report should tell one story: what the building will need in the next 30 years, and the funding plan that pays for it. A good manager keeps that math clear. The rules have tightened. The yearly CRF contribution must be set after considering the most recent depreciation report and, since November 1, 2023, must be at least 10% of the operating fund budget (Strata Property Regulation s.6.1). Since July 1, 2024, the BC government’s depreciation report rules require stratas with five or more lots to get a report every five years, with no more 3/4 vote to defer it. So this dimension matters more now than five years ago. Ask for the current CRF balance, the funding contribution plan, and the depreciation report’s projected five-year spend. If those three numbers don’t line up, the manager either hasn’t done the funding math or isn’t sharing it. A manager who hasn’t raised these rules with council by now is not tracking the reporting requirements.
What good looks like (score 5): CRF balance reconciles to the depreciation report projections, funding schedule is documented, and the manager has already briefed council on the CRF and depreciation report rules.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): no one on council can state the current CRF balance or whether it’s on track against the depreciation report.
Dimension 9: Technology and portal access
Score access to documents, payments and maintenance records against the agreement. A firm without a working portal is pushing friction onto volunteers. Look for 24/7 doc access, online fee payment, digital minutes, and a maintenance flow with status tracking.
Check whether council and owners can retrieve the records and complete the tasks the firm promised.
What good looks like (score 5): owners access current bylaws, minutes, and financial statements 24/7 through the portal; online payment works; maintenance requests flow through a ticket system with visible status.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): no portal, or a portal so broken the manager tells council “just email me instead.”
Dimension 10: Manager portfolio load
How many units should a BC strata manager handle?
This rubric uses 500 units as a workload threshold, not a legal or industry standard. Ask the firm to state the proposed manager’s buildings, unit count and administrative support, then compare those commitments with service records.
Ask the direct question: how many buildings and how many total units is our manager on the hook for? A good firm will tell you. Check how many managers the firm has and how many total units they run. For example, 50,000 units and 40 managers is an average load of 1,250, probably over the line. When scores are low, this dimension often explains several of the other nine.
What good looks like (score 5): proposed manager handles 500 units or fewer across no more than 8 buildings, with documented admin support.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): manager handles 1,500+ units or refuses to state the portfolio size when asked directly.
How to run a strata manager performance review BC councils can defend
Score independently from financial records, minutes, correspondence and the agreement. Pull the following before you score:
- The last six monthly financial packages
- The last four council meeting minutes
- The last 10 non-emergency emails to the manager, with response times
- The most recent insurance renewal correspondence
- The current CRF balance and depreciation report
- Any RESA disclosures on file (the absence is also a data point)
- The current service agreement
Score each dimension 1 to 5. Every council member scores on their own, then compares. When members differ by 2 or more points, somebody has facts the others don’t. The treasurer holds the financial proof; the president holds the email record; committee chairs hold the vendor signals. Pool the proof before you pool the scores.
One note on honesty. Councils under stress tend to score on vibes and justify after. The rubric resists that: each dimension has a behaviour anchor, and the anchors run on proof. If the scores cluster at 1s and 5s with nothing in the middle, proof should pull them back to the centre. If it doesn’t, the case is worse than the rubric shows. That, in itself, is a real finding.
The scorecard’s purpose is not to indict the manager. It is to give the council language and evidence.
What does the total score mean?
Totals run from 10 to 50: stay at 40–50, compare at 30–39, plan a switch below 30. The three bands below map the total to a clear next step. A score of 28 is not “somewhere in the middle.” It is a signal to open a review.
Score 40–50: Stay and improve
Your manager is doing well on most dimensions. Drop the rubric into your next council meeting. Share the total with the managing broker and ask for a written plan on the 1 or 2 dimensions that scored 3 or below. A good firm replies with specifics. Then schedule a re-score in six months, and check your fees against the benchmark to confirm you are paying a fair rate. A 45/50 manager at a fair fee is what this industry is supposed to deliver.
Score 30–39: Start evaluating alternatives
The manager is short on enough dimensions that the council should open an RFP and compare. This is not a firing; it is due diligence. Ask for 2 to 3 proposals from firms that know your building type. Review the contract terms that should be in any management deal so you know what you are comparing. Share the scores with the current firm. It should get the chance to answer them, and a good firm will. If the RFP brings a clearly better option, you have the proof to propose a switch. If it doesn’t, you have confirmed the incumbent is the best your building can get right now.
Score below 30: Switch
A score below 30 means the manager is failing on several core dimensions, and the council’s time is now spent covering for the firm. Give notice under the contract’s termination clause, or, if it doesn’t allow that, pass a ¾ vote at an AGM or SGM under section 39(1) and give two months’ notice. Then run the 60-day transition playbook. Delay at this score usually means another year of the same conversations. The fee benchmarks for Metro Vancouver help you frame what a fair replacement should cost.
Editorial note: this scorecard is from the Strata Match editorial desk. About Strata Match. We built it from BCFSA’s eight-point guide, CRT strata decisions, council switch stories, and recurring public complaint themes. This is editorial research, not legal advice; for contract review, ask a BC-licensed strata lawyer. Section 135 is the rule in the Strata Property Act that governs bylaw notices and hearings, used in Dimension 6.
The receipt: printable 10-row scorecard
Score each dimension 1–5, then total the ten scores.
The receipt: printable 10-row scorecard
| # | Dimension | What you’re scoring | Your score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Manager turnover and stability | Tenure of your current manager on your building | |
| 2 | Communication responsiveness | Stated SLA vs. actual email response time on last 10 emails | |
| 3 | Financial transparency | Monthly package narrative, vendor detail, CRF reconciliation | |
| 4 | Meeting preparation and attendance | Agenda timing, minutes turnaround, action-item tracking | |
| 5 | Contractor and vendor management | Follow-through on work orders, RESA disclosure of referral fees | |
| 6 | Bylaw enforcement consistency | Section 135 process applied evenly across infractions | |
| 7 | Insurance management | 90-day renewal prep, multiple quotes, broker compensation disclosure | |
| 8 | CRF and depreciation report alignment | Balance reconciles to report, funding schedule documented | |
| 9 | Technology and portal access | Owner portal works, documents accessible 24/7 | |
| 10 | Manager portfolio load | Units under current manager ≤500, documented admin support | |
| Total | Sum of all ten dimensions |
Source: Guide sources, checked November 6, 2026. See the Sources section in this guide.
Band map:
- 40–50: Stay. Ask the broker for a written plan on the 1 or 2 low-scoring dimensions. Re-score in six months. Benchmark your fee to confirm fair value.
- 30–39: Evaluate. Open an RFP. Compare 2 to 3 proposals from firms experienced with your building type. Review the contract checklist before signing anything.
- Below 30: Switch. Give notice under the contract, or pass a ¾ vote at an AGM or SGM under section 39(1), then run the 60-day transition playbook. See up to five firms that fit your building.
Related tools for your council
- Try the 6-question Manager scorecard: a shorter, separate quick check with six questions and a result band. It does not score the ten dimensions on this page. Two minutes, no printout needed.
- Compare your current firm with the alternatives: a directory of BC strata management firms, organized by city. See firms in Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey, or your municipality.
- Benchmark your fees: if your score is low, check whether you are also overpaying.
- See up to five firms that fit your building, ranked with reasons.
Sources
Checked against the sources below on November 6, 2026 (BC Laws: Acts current to October 27, 2026; regulations to November 3, 2026). This is general information, not legal or financial advice.
Frequently asked questions
Can a BC strata council score its manager mid-contract?
Yes. A performance review is an internal council exercise and does not depend on contract renewal. A mid-contract scorecard becomes the evidence base for either a written improvement conversation or a termination resolution under Section 39(1) of the Strata Property Act.
What if council members disagree on the scores?
Score independently first, then compare. Dimensions where councillors differ by 2 or more points almost always mean somebody has information the others don't. Reconcile each gap using evidence: minutes, email threads, invoices, the depreciation report. The disagreement is often more useful than the final score.
Is a strata manager performance review in BC legally binding?
No. A scorecard has no statutory standing. It is a council governance tool. The Strata Property Act governs termination under Section 39(1) and records obligations under Section 37; a scorecard supports those decisions but does not replace them.
Who on the council should score the manager?
Every sitting council member, scoring independently. Not the treasurer alone, not the president alone. The evidence for each dimension is distributed across portfolios: the treasurer holds the financial signals, the president holds communication signals, committee chairs hold vendor signals. Combine them.
Does a low scorecard justify terminating the contract early?
A low score can support a review. Section 39(1) of the Strata Property Act allows cancellation on two months' notice after a 3/4 vote at an AGM or SGM. The threshold uses eligible votes cast in person or by proxy, excluding abstentions. Section 39(2) separately allows cancellation under the contract's terms or non-renewal at expiry without prior approval.
What does Section 37 of the Strata Property Act have to do with evaluation?
Under section 37(1), the outgoing provider must give the strata corporation the section 35 records in its possession or control within four weeks after the management contract ends. Use Dimension 3 to list missing financial records for the handover.
